Minutes of April 14, 2003: Page 6, Add Mr. Salvage’s paragraph to top of the page, regarding total sign area for the lot; and change “Mr. Salvage,” to “Mr. Parris,” at the beginning of paragraph 5 where it starts “Mr. Salvage opened the discussion.”

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Mound-Builders Real Estate, 130 East Broadway – Sidewalk Sign Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant is requesting approval for a sidewalk sign to be located in front of the business. The sign would be 7.65 square feet, plastic with a white base, the logo is at the top with a dry erase board at the bottom, and it would be double-sided. Mr. Parris was trying to remember why we tabled this the last time, and was told that in addition to the applicant not being present, there was a question as to the total number of colors. Mr. Dorman said the picture may not be clear but there are 3 colors, including the white base the logo is blue and green. Ms. Lucier raised the issue of the computer in the front window (which scrolls the company’s real estate listings) and whether or not that can be considered a sign. If so, the applicant may be over the maximum number of signs allowed per storefront. Mr. Dorman promised to look into the issue.

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant is requesting approval for umbrella signs. The Village Council’s Sidewalk Café Ordinance for this year stated that all café furniture advertising a product must obtain a sign permit. My analysis at the last meeting was incorrect as I was treating these signs as permanent; technically they are temporary signs. To summarize again, the applicant would use the same umbrellas as last year; each umbrella has six panels with the words “Velvet Ice Cream;” each sign being 1.29 square feet in area. Mr. Parris discussed again his confusion over how the Planning Commission is to handle sidewalk cafés and their associated signage. In the end he summarized by suggesting that the Village Council anticipates the Planning Commission would decide for themselves how to handle signs of this nature and Mr. Main concurred. Mr. Salvage asked for any questions or comments about the application, and he stated he is satisfied the signs are appropriate for the Village.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-017 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Parris thanked the applicant for his patience, understanding that he became a “guinea pig,” in regards to temporary signage for sidewalk cafés, and he does appreciate the applicant’s patience.

New Business:

Alan Miller, 334 Summit Street – Garden Shed

Mr. Dorman stated the applicant is requesting approval to install a garden shed in the rear yard. The garden shed would be 8’ x 10’, with a 4’ wide porch roof on the east side of the structure. The shed would be constructed of wood, sitting on skids, with a composite roof to match the roof color of the house. The applicant has indicated that the siding would come from a century-old barn. Variances are necessary for the shed’s proposed location, for both side and rear yard setbacks. Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if the saw-tooth detail at the bottom of the gable, shown in the elevation, was proposed for this structure and was told yes. He then asked if the applicant planned to finish the siding or stick with the weathered wood look, and was told that the siding would not be finished. Mr. Parris asked about the setback issues, and Mr. Dorman stated that in the Village Residential District, the code calls for 10’ side and rear yard setbacks, and the applicant is proposing 5’ setbacks for the west side and rear yard setbacks. When asked, the applicant indicated that locating the shed at 10’ from the property lines would put it in the middle of his very small backyard. Ms. Lucier noted that other outbuildings on that block are as close as or closer to their property lines than the applicant is proposing to locate his shed.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-031 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT WE DON’T EXPECT THE STRUCTURE TO BE FINISHED; AND THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO VARIANCES BEING OBTAINED FOR THE STRUCTURE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dorman stated that the applicant is requesting approval to construct a kitchen/sunroom addition. The applicant is proposing to construct the one-story addition at the rear of the house. The kitchen/sunroom would be an additional 522 square feet; the old kitchen would become a “Butler’s Pantry;” the existing air conditioner would be relocated from the rear of the house to the east side of the house. Variances are necessary for encroachment into both side yard setbacks, because the applicant cannot meet the 50’ requirement on either side. The applicant briefly discussed the history of the house and the lot, telling how this house ended up on such a peculiar lot. Mr. Burriss asked if the landscaping is such that the air conditioner would be screened in its new location and was told yes, but if the existing landscaping does not adequately screen the unit, the applicant would plant additional landscaping to screen it. Mr. Parris said he is assuming that on the windows the same light pattern from the existing windows would be carried through. Mr. Noblick (Jerry McClain Company) said the proportions would be the same, but on the house you have a little bit of everything in regard to light patterns.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-033 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCES FOR BOTH SIDE YARD SETBACKS BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Clifton Crais, 234 North Pearl Street – Discuss Proposed Garage

Mr. Crais opened with the comment that since he was so successful last year in obtaining approval for the reconstruction project on the rear of his house; he thought he would come in and pick the Commission’s collective brain on a garage. In addition to a car, Mr. Crais would like a place to store the children’s bikes, the lawn-mower and garbage cans. Mr. Crais said that basically, we would like to build a “garage and a half,” and it would be a tall garage to provide an attic above. Mr. Crais noted that over the last nine months he has been researching garages in the Village and has selected the one at 436 North Granger Street to emulate. In the process of reconstructing the rear portion of the house, Mr. Crais kept a lot of the antique windows, so the idea would be to use them in the new garage. One of Mr. Crais’ big issues is where to locate the garage. An aerial photo he had (circa. 1936) shows his property with vehicle tracks pointing to the southeast corner of the lot, and this is where they would like to build the garage. Mr. Burriss asked where the telephone pole was in relation to the proposed driveway and was told to the west of it. Mr. Crais was certain the spacing between the drive and the pole would be adequate for the turning radius. This lead to the discussion of another detail, Mr. Crais said they would install brick treads leading to the garage. Mr. Burriss raised the issue of the orientation of the roof gable; noting that in the picture of the garage Mr. Crais likes and the drawing of the proposed garage the gables are different. Mr. Crais stated that when he submitted drawings to Mr. Dorman, he said the roof should be oriented the opposite of the way it is shown in the drawing, with the peak side facing the street rather than the roof side, and Mr. Burriss agreed. Mr. Burriss asked if the board and batten siding shown on the Granger Street garage would be used on this garage. Mr. Crais said no, that they would reproduce the siding and possibly the moldings of the house. Mr. Burriss and the Commission agreed that the board and batten siding is more typical of outbuildings from that period, and in addition is less expensive than the horizontal siding. Mr. Main asked how the proposed location of the garage relates to neighboring structures and Mr. Crais described the location of the neighbor’s outbuilding. Mr. Crais said the new garage would be about 3’ from the south side property line to allow room to maintain the structure. Mr. Burriss asked what changes would be made to the existing fence and would the hole in the middle of the fence on the north side be filled in. Mr. Crais suggested there would be a gate across the new drive, and the hole in the existing fence is the result of removing a portion of the fence for the house reconstruction project.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACTS FOR ITEMS A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND A AND B UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF APRIL 25, 2003. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.